Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

12258527 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/258,527
124192
GOOGLE
7590
FILING DATE
10/27/2008
08/29/2016
C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Prachi P. Kumar
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
GP-100514-00-US 9258
EXAMINER
SEFCHECK, GREGORY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
googleusinternal@faegrebd.com
inteas@faegrebd.com
michelle.davis@faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRACH! P. KUMAR, GREGORY M. AGAMI,
JIANGNAN JASON CHEN, MARK J. MARSAN, and
TRANG K. NGUYEN
Appeal2015-000124
Application 12/258,527
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Motorola Mobility
LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-000124
Application 12/258,527
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to "wireless communication
systems and, more specifically, to techniques for maintaining quality of
service for connections in wireless communication systems." Spec. ,-r 1.
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method of operating a wireless communication
device, comprising:
assigning re-transmission identifiers to at least a first re-
transmission identifier group and a second re-transmission
identifier group, wherein the first and second re-transmission
identifier groups are associated with different quality of
service parameters;
receiving, from a subscriber station by the wireless
communication device, a bandwidth request wherein the
bandwidth request includes a connection identifier
corresponding to an application on the subscriber station
requiring a quality of service of at least one of the different
quality of service parameters requirements;
•• -C.. t. ·1 .. ,..J. transmittmg, 11 om tue wife1ess commumcatwn uevice
to the subscriber station, the assigned re-transmission
identifiers for the application corresponding to the received
quality of service requirements; and
identifying whether a committed quality of service is
met for a connection based on whether a communication on
the connection is associated with the first re-transmission
identifier group or the second re-transmission identifier group.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Xu et al. US 2003/0026257 Al Feb. 6,2003
(hereinafter "Xu")
Terry et al. US 2007 /0153672 Al July 5, 2007
(hereinafter "Terry")
Blanz et al. US 2007/0195809 Al Aug. 23, 2007
(hereinafter "Blanz")
2
Appeal2015-000124
Application 12/258,527
Lin et al.
(hereinafter "Lin")
US 7,706,276 B2
Etemad et al. US 7,751,363 Bl
(hereinafter "Etemad")
Apr. 27, 2010
July 6, 2010
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terry, Lin, and Blanz. (See
Final Act. 2-5.)
Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Terry, Lin, Blanz, and Xu. (See Final Act. 5---6.)
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Terry, Lin, Blanz, and Etemad. (See Final Act. 6-
7.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed June 23, 2014; "Reply Br." filed Sept. 17, 2014) and the
Specification ("Spec." filed Oct. 27, 2008, amended May 30, 2012) for the
positions of 1A .. ppellants and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed
Feb. 21, 2014) and Examiner's Answer ("Ans." mailed July 17, 2014) for
the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUE
Based on Appellants' arguments, we discuss the App ea 1 by referring
to claim 1. The salient issue presented by Appellants' arguments is whether
3
Appeal2015-000124
Application 12/258,527
the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Terry, Lin, and Blanz
teaches or suggests:
rece1vmg, from a subscriber station by the wireless
communication device, a bandwidth request wherein the
bandwidth request includes a connection identifier
corresponding to an application on the subscriber station
requiring a quality of service of at least one of the different
quality of service parameters requirements; [and] transmitting,
from the wireless communication device to the subscriber
station, the assigned re-transmission identifiers for the
application corresponding to the received quality of service
requirements;
as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's findings (Final Act. 2---6) and
explanations (Ans. 2--4) regarding claim 1 in light of Appellants' arguments
and contentions (App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 1-2). We agree with the
Examiner's findings and explanations and we adopt them as our own. The
following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for emphasis.
Bandwidth Request
Appellants contend Lin's "QoS[2] requests are not bandwidth
requests[, as recited in claim 1]," App. Br. 11. Appellants' explain "QoS is
a broad term that includes multiple performance aspects, one of which
may affect (yet does not have to affect) bandwidth." Id. (citing Lin col. 7,
11. 53-57). Accepting, arguendo, Appellants' description of the relationship
between bandwidth and QoS, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The
Examiner explains as follows:
2 Quality of Service. Spec. i-f 3.
4
Appeal2015-000124
Application 12/258,527
[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand a "QoS
request" as in Lin is equivalent to a broadest reasonable
interpretation of a "bandwidth request" as claimed. A
"bandwidth request" would be understood to broadly include any
and all such requests for a network resource, whether based on
QoS or not. As such, Lin's "QoS request" is a specific type of
bandwidth request that is based on specified QoS parameters,
such as delay requirements, etc.
Ans. 3. We agree.
Lin teaches the following: "Based on the delay and bandwidth
requirements requested by the upper applications, the sample embodiment
attempts to establish multiple air interface links and Al 0 links, using
different parameters in the forward and reverse links to meet the upper
layer's QoS requests." Lin col. 7, 11. 53-57. In other words, Lin teaches
using a bandwidth requirement to establish a link in accordance with QoS
requirements, i.e., request for bandwidth or "a bandwidth request."
Applications on a Subscriber Station
Appellants contend "the [Final] Office [A]ction appears to be
equating the packet flows of Lin with the applications on the subscriber
stations of claim 1. A web browser is an example of an application on the
subscriber station. Packet flows are not applications on a subscriber station
.... " App. Br. 11. We are unpersuaded of error.
Lin teaches that "an additional software layer can be added to classify
the packets sent by a conventional application 160, and assign them to the
appropriate reservations." Lin col. 7, 11. 32-35. Thus, Lin teaches that the
Link Flows represented by Link Flow IDs and Reservation Labels (see id.
col. 7, 11. 20-32, Figs. lA-B) correspond to the applications 160 at Lin's
5
Appeal2015-000124
Application 12/258,527
AT3 110, e.g., an advanced cell phone (see id. col. 6, 1. 33), i.e., applications
on a subscriber station. Furthermore, the Link Flow IDs and Reservation
Labels identify packets that do and do not contain acknowledgement data,
i.e., have two different QoS requirements. See id. col. 7, 11. 27-32. In other
words, Lin teaches a bandwidth request "includes a connection identifier
corresponding to an application on the subscriber station requiring a
quality of service of at least one of the different quality of service
parameters," as recited in claim 1.
Link Flow IDs to Convey HARQ4Information
Appellants contend "the combination [of Terry and Lin] ... does not
suggest ... that the link flow ID, when received in a reverse flow from the
AT, is used by the AN[5] to determine and transmit re-transmission
parameters to the AT for an application on the AT." App. Br. 13.
Appellants further contend "Blanz ... also fails to suggest that a Node B
receives an identifier corresponding to QoS requirements for an application
on a User Equipment, and then selects the channel IDs for HARQ processes
for the application on the UE based on an identifier received." App. Br. 13-
14. We are unpersuaded of error.
"The test for obviousness is not ... that the claimed invention
must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re
3 Access Terminal. Lin col. 6, 1. 33.
4 Hybrid automatic repeat-request. Spec. i-f 5; see also Blanz i-f 38 ("hybrid
automatic retransmission").
5 Access Network. Lin col. 6, 1. 38.
6
Appeal2015-000124
Application 12/258,527
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). As
pointed out by the Examiner, Terry teaches the processing of higher
layer flows associated with differing QoS and subjected to multiple
HARQ processes. Ans. 3. Terry does not explicitly teach a
request/response mechanism for conveying differing QoS information
or assigning identifiers to the multiple HARQ processes, as claimed.
Abs. 3--4. The Examiner finds Lin teaches a request/response for
conveying QoS information between base station and mobile station.
Ans. 4. Although Lin teaches differentiating flows via link flow ID,
Blanz teaches mapping of different HARQ processes to groups
through IDs associated with the appropriate corresponding HARQ
group( s ), thereby simplifying the signaling of such HARQ
information to the mobile station. Id. We agree. For emphasis we
note Blanz further teaches the following:
Each HARQ process ID group may be associated with a different
channel ID. A given HARQ process may then be conveyed by
(a) the channel ID associated with the HARQ process ID group
containing the selected HARQ process ID and (b) an index for
the selected HARQ process ID within the group, which may be
sent on the HS-SCCH. For example, channel ID #1 may convey
a first HARQ process ID, channel ID #2 may convey a second
HARQ process ID, etc.
Blanz i-f 78 (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art,
who is a person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007), would have learned from the
combination of Lin and Blanz with Terry: "receiving, ... a connection
identifier ... requiring a quality of service of at least one of the different
quality of service parameters requirements[, and] transmitting, from the
7
Appeal2015-000124
Application 12/258,527
wireless communication device to the subscriber station, the assigned re-
transmission identifiers," as recited in claim 1.
Summary
Appellants' arguments and contentions do not establish Examiner
error in the rejection of claim 1. Appellants contend that neither Xu nor
Etemad overcomes the alleged deficiencies of Terry, Lin, and Blanz,
contentions we find unpersuasive in view of our findings supra. See App.
Br. 14--15. Appellants do not otherwise separately argue the patentability of
claims 2-20. See id. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections over various
combinations of Terry, Lin, Blanz, Xu, and Etemad of (1) claim 1;
(2) independent claims 8 and 15; and (3) claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20,
which depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013).
AFFIRMED
8